1785 AND 1796
1285 says: Will warnings protect children from seizures
I'm concerned that flash content warnings will be useful mainly to
adults who already know that they are vulnerable to photosensitive
seizures. But young children are far more likely to suffer
photosensitive seizures, and to be unaware of their condition (as may
be their parents, teachers, and doctors). How will children benefit
from flash content warnings?
1796 says SC 2.3.1 needs stronger protection than just warning the user
Perhaps this should be rewritten to require that either (1) the content
doesn't violate either the general flash threshold or the red flash
threshold, or (2) the content is written in such a way that user agents can
avoid presenting it if it violates either the red flash threshold or the
general flash threshold.
Suggest
We poll the following
- 2.3.2 up to L1
1793 New 2.3 SC requiring Equivalent content at L1 if content violates flash
thresholds
Suggest
If we don't move 2.3.2 up to level 1 then we include something at level 1
requiring equivalent content.
Suggest
Suggest